Those that know me may be surprised to know that I am a great proponent of global warming, and looking for ways of saving the human race (the planet will be fine, it will just get rid of the human race, and start again).
The thing that we do is burn fossil fuels and dump CO2 by the millions of tons into the atmosphere. Then expect it to be soaked up by trees around the world. One of the biggest places being the Amazon rain forest.
For years we have been harping on about the Brazilians destroying their natural habitat, and the earths lungs (for those stupids out there, at a very basic level trees suck up CO2, and release O2). CO2 of course isn't the only greenhouse gas, and the complete picture is a bit more complicated than that.
But, I was listening to Costing the Earth today on Radio 4, where some Brazilian / Amazonian politicians / landowners were talking, and they were getting a bit sick of being told by the rest of the world not to tear down their rainforest, where they could make an income from it by doing so. Effectively they want to be paid for having the trees providing a service to the planet. Totally understandable.
The US has effectively deforested for the sake of urban expansion, and farming, and now expects Brazil not to do so.
So, a solution. There should be (another) tax on all fuel usage, to go, not to governments, but to a big global pot of money. There would be outcry, prices of other goods and services would go up as a result (perhaps there may even be less fuel usage as a result), but we all have to pay for using the Earth.
From there, all land owners who have trees should be paid for having trees, and maintaining and keeping trees instead of cutting them down. Whether this be countries / governments or individuals.
Hideously complicated and expensive I know, and 3rd world countries will suffer from land grabbers (previously worthless land will become an income source, and therefore attractive to politicians and other lowlifes), but a start nevertheless.
Many believe that we have already passed the tipping point, so maybe Hazel Blears was right - grab as mush as you can while you can.
Thursday, 21 May 2009
£1645 for a duck island.
£1645 for a duck island!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
On expenses. Amongst total expense claim of £30 odd 000.
Sir Peter Viggers. Why are you still knighted. Where are Inland revenue. Why have you not been clapped in irons.
This is not just amoral, and wrong, its got to be illegal.
The inland revenue need to look at each and every MP over the last 7 years, look at all the expense claims, and get back taxes, with interest and fines. Just like everyone else.
£1645 for a duck island!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
On expenses. Amongst total expense claim of £30 odd 000.
Sir Peter Viggers. Why are you still knighted. Where are Inland revenue. Why have you not been clapped in irons.
This is not just amoral, and wrong, its got to be illegal.
The inland revenue need to look at each and every MP over the last 7 years, look at all the expense claims, and get back taxes, with interest and fines. Just like everyone else.
Wednesday, 20 May 2009
School holidays
Just heard some utter twit on breakfast tv this morning (tuned in a bit late, so didn't get his credentials or name), but either a teacher or head, along with the opposite view parent, talking about taking children out of school for holidays.
Parents stance - its much cheaper to do so, it affects child school progress very little, it's good for family time, and it's educational (cross cultural learning, and language development). Personally I utterly agree with this, we have taken our children out of school for holidays, and it has mad absolutely no impact on their school progression whatsoever.
Twit's - oops teacher's - stance, and this statement really stood out - poor child performance has been unequivocally linked to poor attendance. Of this I have absolutely no doubt, but you have to link holidays to poor attendance, and of that there is no evidence - ie do parents who take their children away on holidays also allow thir children to poorly attend. Perhaps, but poor attendance is more likely to be a chronic, repeated poor attendance throughout the year, rather than just a 2 week or so period one off.
Other anti in term holidays arguments - its disruptive to teaching - well that was about it really.
The snob also commented that he had sympathy with parents who took children on educational trips as opposed to the Marbella - hmmm - wonder what Marbellan residents have to say about that.
The problem - holiday providers (hotels, tour operators etc) all inflate their prices for school holidays, sometimes double or more compared to term time, so it is very tempting for parents to go, with or without permission.
The solution - change the shool term system, so there is no holiday price bias. Instead of fixed terms, have teaching all year round, and allow children to have an amount of time off over the year, whenever they want. They would have to make themselves available at certain times to attend for instance exams.
Downside for teachers - they would only get 5 weeks or so holiday a year, just like the rest of us, instead of the 13 weeks or so they get now (fully paid of course), together with all the training days held during what would normally be classed a teaching day, forcing the parents to take time off work in order to look after the offspring (what goes on in a training day anyway?)
Now perhaps we see the real reason for teachers reluctance to allow out of term holidays - it would just be the thin end of the wedge, the slippery slope to have to work all year, instead of the ridiculous holidays they have now.
Don't get me wrong, I have far more respect for teachers than I do for politicians, and most of them do a fine job of teaching, often under difficult circumstances, but the holidays, and the insistance on keeping them is just out dated.
Parents stance - its much cheaper to do so, it affects child school progress very little, it's good for family time, and it's educational (cross cultural learning, and language development). Personally I utterly agree with this, we have taken our children out of school for holidays, and it has mad absolutely no impact on their school progression whatsoever.
Twit's - oops teacher's - stance, and this statement really stood out - poor child performance has been unequivocally linked to poor attendance. Of this I have absolutely no doubt, but you have to link holidays to poor attendance, and of that there is no evidence - ie do parents who take their children away on holidays also allow thir children to poorly attend. Perhaps, but poor attendance is more likely to be a chronic, repeated poor attendance throughout the year, rather than just a 2 week or so period one off.
Other anti in term holidays arguments - its disruptive to teaching - well that was about it really.
The snob also commented that he had sympathy with parents who took children on educational trips as opposed to the Marbella - hmmm - wonder what Marbellan residents have to say about that.
The problem - holiday providers (hotels, tour operators etc) all inflate their prices for school holidays, sometimes double or more compared to term time, so it is very tempting for parents to go, with or without permission.
The solution - change the shool term system, so there is no holiday price bias. Instead of fixed terms, have teaching all year round, and allow children to have an amount of time off over the year, whenever they want. They would have to make themselves available at certain times to attend for instance exams.
Downside for teachers - they would only get 5 weeks or so holiday a year, just like the rest of us, instead of the 13 weeks or so they get now (fully paid of course), together with all the training days held during what would normally be classed a teaching day, forcing the parents to take time off work in order to look after the offspring (what goes on in a training day anyway?)
Now perhaps we see the real reason for teachers reluctance to allow out of term holidays - it would just be the thin end of the wedge, the slippery slope to have to work all year, instead of the ridiculous holidays they have now.
Don't get me wrong, I have far more respect for teachers than I do for politicians, and most of them do a fine job of teaching, often under difficult circumstances, but the holidays, and the insistance on keeping them is just out dated.
The speaker
So the speakers done the honourable thing and stepped down. Or according to Hilary Ben, has put everyone else and the rest of the House of Scheisters, I mean Commons first before himself.
Or was it that the effusive apology and attempt to cling on to his position just wasn't enough to stop the back stabbing trough snorting power mongers demanding that he go, and take the blame for what they have been doing for years?
Getting someone to resign doesn't excuse the years of fingers deep in the pie of 'rules allowed' expenses claims, just because they were unable to keep it hidden from the great unwashed. Or is that the real reason he had to go - because he couldn't obfuscate the freedom of information flow, and keep it hidden from us?
Whatever the case, some MPs are now worried that if public opinion could get the speaker's head to roll, then which one of them is next?
Or was it that the effusive apology and attempt to cling on to his position just wasn't enough to stop the back stabbing trough snorting power mongers demanding that he go, and take the blame for what they have been doing for years?
Getting someone to resign doesn't excuse the years of fingers deep in the pie of 'rules allowed' expenses claims, just because they were unable to keep it hidden from the great unwashed. Or is that the real reason he had to go - because he couldn't obfuscate the freedom of information flow, and keep it hidden from us?
Whatever the case, some MPs are now worried that if public opinion could get the speaker's head to roll, then which one of them is next?
Friday, 8 May 2009
Expenses - again!
Its been a while since my last post, but it's really looking like fun in London at the moment.
"The House of Commons authorities have asked police in London to investigate the leaking of details of MPs' expenses."
"A spokesman for the House claimed that there were "reasonable grounds to believe a criminal offence may have been committed". "
I'll bloody say.
£6000 for a cleaner for Gordy and his brother
Jack Straw claiming back full council tax for 4 years, when he was only paying 50% for a second home. And claiming for work done on his own constituency home under the second home allowance rules to repair dilapidated fixings (which one was the 'second' home then?)
Hazel Blears switching second home allowance 3 times to 3 different properties in the space of one year.
The list goes on.
When interviewed, the universal reply is that they've done nothing wrong, as it was all within the rules. Who made the rules?
No wonder the country's sick to the eye teeth of this lot. And they sit there and wonder what's going on.
"The House of Commons authorities have asked police in London to investigate the leaking of details of MPs' expenses."
"A spokesman for the House claimed that there were "reasonable grounds to believe a criminal offence may have been committed". "
I'll bloody say.
£6000 for a cleaner for Gordy and his brother
Jack Straw claiming back full council tax for 4 years, when he was only paying 50% for a second home. And claiming for work done on his own constituency home under the second home allowance rules to repair dilapidated fixings (which one was the 'second' home then?)
Hazel Blears switching second home allowance 3 times to 3 different properties in the space of one year.
The list goes on.
When interviewed, the universal reply is that they've done nothing wrong, as it was all within the rules. Who made the rules?
No wonder the country's sick to the eye teeth of this lot. And they sit there and wonder what's going on.
Wednesday, 22 April 2009
On MPs pay
Here's how I would do it.
1. Pay MPs a salary - £60 or £70K not unreasonable, as lets face it is quite stressful - having to smile all the time, and listen to what your civil servants and publicists, and advisors tell you what to say.
2. Abolish all expenses, and staff expenses, and second homes.
3. Provide accommodation for MPs who have to stay in London, at a reduced rent of course. Have heard the olympic village idea - its a good one.
4. Staff used by MPs vetted and paid for by parliament - no MP involvement in remunuration.
5. Review pension provisions to MPs - they currently get a £30,000 pot after their first term (or thereabouts) - let them feel the same pain as everyone else.
5. Supply electric cars to all MPs for use in London - lead by example.
It is said that fewer quality people will be attracted to politics if the remunuration is reduced - my question is should that sort of person be wanted to serve us anyway? Should not people who want to be MPs want to be MPs for reasons other than what they can gorge at the trough? Just thinking aloud.
1. Pay MPs a salary - £60 or £70K not unreasonable, as lets face it is quite stressful - having to smile all the time, and listen to what your civil servants and publicists, and advisors tell you what to say.
2. Abolish all expenses, and staff expenses, and second homes.
3. Provide accommodation for MPs who have to stay in London, at a reduced rent of course. Have heard the olympic village idea - its a good one.
4. Staff used by MPs vetted and paid for by parliament - no MP involvement in remunuration.
5. Review pension provisions to MPs - they currently get a £30,000 pot after their first term (or thereabouts) - let them feel the same pain as everyone else.
5. Supply electric cars to all MPs for use in London - lead by example.
It is said that fewer quality people will be attracted to politics if the remunuration is reduced - my question is should that sort of person be wanted to serve us anyway? Should not people who want to be MPs want to be MPs for reasons other than what they can gorge at the trough? Just thinking aloud.
Budget day!!
Al's going to come up with another world saving budget today.
Not.
More than likely just a load of publicised and hidden tweeks here and there which have a net effect on the average person of +/- zilch, just add more bureaucracy to business, and make this country less and less attractive as somewhere to live for people born here.
Not.
More than likely just a load of publicised and hidden tweeks here and there which have a net effect on the average person of +/- zilch, just add more bureaucracy to business, and make this country less and less attractive as somewhere to live for people born here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)